It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Council of Nicea - NO reincarnation, NO books of the Bible

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
did they take out all mention of reincarnation from the Bible?

Even if they tried, they failed miserably as there are some pretty clear spots in the N.T. that shows that reincarnation was the belief of the time...

...not to mention that most of the rabbis throughout the ages have believed in and taught reincarnation. Talk to your local chasidic rebbe or sephardic orthodox rabbi...they'll tell you.

cheers!




posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by Seapeople
So iasion, what you are saying is that the council of Nicea never occured?


Nope.
I said NOTHING remotely like that.

Not sure how you got that idea from my posts.


Iasion



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Well in the year 335 Constantine specifically stated that he wanted to remove all references to reincarnation from the bible. In 553 ad, the councel of Nicea in Constantinople had a main purpose, and it was to ratify those specific thoughts. The entire purpose of the conference was for this.

For you to post this, you must be denying exactly what was done.

Tell me Iason, are those passages from the bible included in your KJV 1611, or are they still there?



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I would like to add, that your perfect little bible that you defend so much, whether or not it had references to reincarnation or not, had portions removed and added to help the wonderful people like you better defend its contradicting nature. Regardless of what happened at that councel, it changed the bible. Just one time of many that entire portions were removed.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Greetings seapeople,


Well in the year 335 Constantine specifically stated that he wanted to remove all references to reincarnation from the bible.


False.
I am not aware of any evidence this ever happened.
May I ask you produce the evidence for your claim?



In 553 ad, the councel of Nicea in Constantinople had a main purpose, and it was to ratify those specific thoughts. The entire purpose of the conference was for this.


Another confused person :-)
There was NO "councel[sic] of Nicea in Constantinople"

There was a Council of Nicea in 325CE - it was in Nicea, now Turkey.
It dealt with Arianism (whether Jesus was always God, or became God later at the baptism), and the date of Easter, and some other minor issues like accepting people who had been "castrated by the barbarians" (Canon 1 :-)
There is NO EVIDENCE it dealt with re-incarnation.
There is NO EVIDENCE it changed the Bible, (or decided the books of the Bible).


There was a 2nd Council of Constantinople in 553CE.
This council DID anathemize the belief in pre-destination of the soul.
There is NO EVIDENCE it changed the Bible.




For you to post this, you must be denying exactly what was done.


I thought I made myself very clear - reading comprehension is not a strong suit here I fear.

I am not really sure what you are claiming?

IF you are going to claim things about Councils changing the Bible, I expect you to :
1) provide evidence for your claim
2) deal with the evidence against your claim


But, let me expand -

* Some Early Christians DID believe in re-incarnation it seems (I really don't see much difference between re-incarnation and pre-existence of souls myself.)

* The early church DID anathemize this belief - in 2nd Constantinople 553CE

* The early church DID make changes to the Bible for doctrinal reasons (e.g. added the Trinity, changed the words of God at the Baptism)

But, all I am trying to do is SQUASH a RUMOUR,
I am trying to educate people about an URBAN RUMOUR, ok?


The Council of Nicea DID NOT "remove re-incarnation from the Bible"

The evidence just isn't there.
And - there ARE still implications of re-incarnation in the Bible - prima facie evidence it was not "removed".


Maybe to some of you, one Council is as good as another - Nicea 325CE, Constantinople 553CE - what's the diff? :-)

The difference is the timing - in early 4th century, the Bible was still being changed here and there - Jerome made large charges, including adding the Trinity not long after Nicea.

But by the 6th century, it was too late - too many copies were too well known - few changes to the Bible were made this late.



Tell me Iason, are those passages from the bible included in your KJV 1611, or are they still there?


Why is it so hard to get my name right?

What passages?
No-one has come up with amy passages that were removed.
You seem to be arguing about totally non-existent evidence.

If YOU claim passages about re-incarnation were removed from the Bible - where is your EVIDENCE for this claim?

Can you produce any early copies WITH the passages?
Can you produce any early Christian writing mentioning the passages?
Can you produce any early Christian writing mentioing removal of the passages?

Can you perhaps summarise your claim and give your evidence please?

Did you know the KJV is one of the single least accurate translations of the Bible you can find? It is based on a few late and suspect MSS, now considreed a very poor version indeed.


Iasion



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   


Pardon?
Have you read the Canons of the Council of Nicea?
I have.

I see there is no mention of re-incarnation there.



If I may ask though....for arguments sake, let's say that they did take out reincarnation. Why would they include that they did so in their records? Wouldn't they be defeating the purpose a little bit if they left evidence that they did?



posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Greetings,


Originally posted by MisfitDiver
If I may ask though....for arguments sake, let's say that they did take out reincarnation. Why would they include that they did so in their records? Wouldn't they be defeating the purpose a little bit if they left evidence that they did?


Well,
what we DO see is :

* mention of re-incarnation in the Bible,
* evidence for other changes to the Bible
* evidence of Councils making decisions about doctrine

But whar we do NOT see is :

* any evidence that Nicea changed the Bible
* any evidence that any council changed the Bible
* any evidnce that re-incarnation was removed from the Bible.


So, Misfit,
in light of all the actual evidence,
my questions to you would be :

* What on earth makes you think re-incarnation was removed from the bible?

* If it was removed, where are the earlier MSS with it still included?

* Where are the disagreements from those who wanted it left it?

* How was it removed from all MSS in far-flug regions?

* Where is the instructions to other chucrhes to remove it?



Did you know that the Bible originally had pink dancing elephants at the crucifixion?

But all reference to Pink Dancing Elephants were removed from the Bible - the fact that there are none in there now is proof they were removed.


Iasion


[edit on 6-3-2005 by Iasion]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   
I don't think there was/is any specific part of the Bible that subscribes to the theory of Re-incarnation definitely. Re-incarnation was just one of the theories that theologists came up with at the time. Much like the theory of Jesus's Divinity, the theory of God creating the universe out of nothing (non eximo or something). It is just that later on certain theories were mainstreamed, while the others were to be considered "heritical". There was, and still is, basis for both sides of the arguement in the Bible.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
EXCELLENT THREAD! This is really interesting.
I have nothing substantial to add to this conversation.
I'm just lurking ... and learning.

Just wanted to say one thing though ... I REALLY hope
that those who believe in reincarnation are wrong. I
don't EVER want to come back to this rock. Once here
is more than enough. I want to move on.

Okay ... continue the conversation .... (excellent work ya'll!!)



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Some quotes



We were thrown to the lions in the circuses of Rome, and we celebrated our rituals in the catacombs. We were burnt alive in the flames of the Roman Catholic inquisition. We accompanied Jesus Christ in the Holy Land. We were the mystical Essenes of Palastine; we are not improvising opportunist doctrines. We were hidden during twenty centuries and we are now returning once again to the street carrying on our shoulders the old, rough and heavy cross.

Paul took our doctrine to Rome and he was a Nazarene Gnostic.

Christ taught our doctrine in secrecy to the seventy disciples.

The Sethani, Peratae, Carpocratians, Nazarenes and Essenses are Gnostic. The Egyptian and Aztec Mysteries, the Mysteries of Rome, Troy, Carthage, of Eleusis, India, of the Druids, Pythagoreans, Kambirs, of Mithra and Persia, etc. are in their entirety that which we call Gnosis or Gnosticism.

We now once again open the ancient Gnostic Sanctuaries which were closed upon the arrival of the dark age.

We are now opening the authentic Initiatic Colleges. - Excerpted from The Greater Mysteries by Samael Aun Weor.



Excerpt from The Perfect Matrimony




There are four very important paths that every Perfect Matrimony must know:

The path of the Fakir
The path of the Monk
The path of the Yogi
The path of the well-balanced human being



The Universal Christian Gnostic Movement has school and Religion.

We experience the first path in practical matters learning to live with rectitude.

The second path lies within our church. Our Gnostic Church has its sacraments, rituals and its convent life.

The third path has to do with occult practices. We have our esoteric practices, special exercises for the development of the latent powers in the human being.

On the fourth path, which is "The Path of the Astute Man," we live practically in the most complete equilibrium. We study Alchemy and Kabbalah. We work on the disintegration of the psychological "I."


The Roman Catholic Church in its present form was not founded by Jesus. This Roman Church is a deviation or corruption, a fallen branch of the holy Gnosticism. The Roman Catholic Church is a cadaver...

In this present time, the Roman Catholic Church has totally lost the tradition. That is why we see that in this Roman Church the fire of the temple is lit by acolyte boys, an action that is not only an absurdity, but more over, a very grave sacrilege and an insult to life itself...



We are not members of the Roman Catholic Church.This church only follows the path of the Monk. We follow all four paths. We have the path of the Monk in our Gnostic religion with its Patriarch, Archbishops, Bishops and Priests. That is why we do not belong to the Church of Rome.

We are not against any religion, school or sect either. Many priests of the Roman Church have come to our ranks. People from all organizations have become affiliated with our Gnostic Movement.


Our Gnostic Church is one of the most complete ones. On the path of the Fakir, we learn to live with rectitude. On the path of the Monk, we develop emotion. On the path of the Yogi, we practice esoteric exercises that activate the latent occult powers of man. On the path of the balanced man, we work with Alchemy and with Kabbalah, and we struggle disintegrating the "I."

Our Gnostic Church is the Transcendent Church. This church is found in the Superior Worlds.

We also have many temples in the physical world. In addition, we have opened thousands of Gnostic Lumisials where Holy Rituals are celebrated and the Secret Doctrine of the Beloved Saviour of the world is studied. We must not forget that our Gnostic Movement has both school and religion.

It has already been decisively confirmed that Jesus the Christ was Gnostic. The Saviour of the World was an active member of the cast of Essenes, mystics who never cut their hair or their beards.

The Gnostic Church is the authentic Primitive Christian Church whose first Pope was the Gnostic Initiate called Peter. Paul of Tarsus belonged to that church. He was a Nazarene. The Nazarenes were another Gnostic sect.

The Primitive Christian Church was the true main esoteric trunk from which many other Neo-Christian sects sprung forth, such as: Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Adventism, the Armenian Church, etc.

Frankly, we have made the resolution to make the root of Christianity, Gnosticism, publicly known. This is the Primitive Christian Church.
The Patriarch Basilides belonged to the Gnostic church. He was the celebrated alchemist who left a seven page book of lead, which, according to Master Krumm Heller, is preserved in the Kiercher Museum of the Vatican. This book cannot be understood by archaeologists because it is a book of occult science. Basilides was a disciple of Saint Matthias.

Roman Catholicism of today is not true Catholicism. Legitimate, authentic, Catholicism is the Primitive Christian Catholic Gnostic one. The current Roman Sect is only a deviation of Primitive Gnostic Catholicism. Frankly, this is the basic reason why we have completely distanced ourselves from the Roman Sect.

Saints such as: Saturninus of Antioch, the celebrated Kabbalist, belonged to the Primitive Christian Catholic Gnostic Church; Simon the Magician, who unfortunately deviated; Carpocrates, who founded several Gnostic convents in Spain; Marcion of Ponto, Saint Thomas, Saint Valentine; the Great Master of Major Mysteries called Saint Augustine; Tertullian; Saint Ambrose; Irenaeus; Hippolytus; Epiphanius; Clement of Alexandria; Mark, the Great Gnostic who took care of the Holy Gnostic Unction and left us the extraordinary teachings about the path of sexual forces through the twelve zodiacal doors of the human organism. Also Cerdon, Empedocles, Saint Geronimo and many other saints were members of the Primitive Christian Catholic Gnostic Church from which the current Roman sect deviated.




Peace

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Tamahu]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   


But whar we do NOT see is :

* any evidence that Nicea changed the Bible
* any evidence that any council changed the Bible
* any evidnce that re-incarnation was removed from the Bible.

All I'm saying is this: It sure wouldn't say very much about the Church if they would just leave proof lying around that they interfered in the Bible.



So, Misfit,
in light of all the actual evidence,
my questions to you would be :

* What on earth makes you think re-incarnation was removed from the bible?


I never said I did. In fact, I stopped believing in Christianity for reasons like all the stuff the Church has pulled over the years (no offense to you Christians, I have other reasons as well). I can however, offer you a reason why they might have. One of the biggest emotions that religions tend to exploit is fear. If they scare the masses into believing that they have only one life, just one, to get it right or they will burn forever, then the Church will have that much more power and influence. However, if they hadn't taken it out (again, if they did), they would lose power. People wouldn't feel as attached to the Church if they knew that they had room for error. Wether you like it or not, history has proven the the Catholic Church just loved to play politics with the other countries and dig their fingers (figuratively speaking) into their affairs.

Nice post about gnostics (can't remember who it was, forgive me). Let me use the Gnostic Gospels as an example to prove my point. Early on, the church had to decide what was going to be included in the bible. How many gospels are included in your Bible? 4. Do you seriously think that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were the only disciples who wrote about their Lord? No! Many other gospels were written, but the Church decided that those weren't going to be included for reasons including things like, Jesus not resembling god enough, some told of him having a family, etc etc. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but weren't the bibles that did have these Gnostic Gospels in them rounded up and burnt, and that those who choose to read them anyway were considered heretics?




Did you know that the Bible originally had pink dancing elephants at the crucifixion?

But all reference to Pink Dancing Elephants were removed from the Bible - the fact that there are none in there now is proof they were removed.



Okay....



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Questions:

Wasn't the major aim of the Council of Nicea to refute Arianism?
Wasn't Arianism the belief that man could be reincarnated and unified with God by becoming divine? Man would be reincarnated as Sons of God and therefore gain Salvation?
In that case isn't refutatation of Arianism a rejection of reincarnation by default?

Even if this wasn't the case, Arianist doctrine decreed that Christ was not God - he was secondary to Him. The Nicene creed refuted this claim:


"We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father [homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made our of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

By referring to Jesus as "incarnate" and making him God does the Council not therefore refute the reincarnate? It refutes the belief that Jesus was created, doesn't that therefore refute the reincarnate?



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   


Nice try Iasion, but people don't want to know the truth, they want something to support their beliefs first.

Even if you had it on video people won't believe it, they will just say that its been deleted.

Sometimes the illusion is stronger than the reality ....


Aint that the truth!

Stop clouding the issue with facts Iasion!
Your taking all the fun out of hating christians



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iasion

You will note there is NO MENTION of re-incarnation (nor any mention of deciding the books of the bible.)


That's because the books of the NT were not canonized at the Council of Nicea but at the Council of Laodicea in 365.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
hi all...
The early Christian Church fought the idea of reincarnation, which entered the Christian world through Eastern teachings such as those of the Manicheans.


And not Judaism? Why would it come from Eastern teachings when it was also a part of Judaism?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 02:49 AM
link   


The legend that the Council of Nicea removed re-incarnation from the Bible (as well as another legend about it chosing the books of the Bible) is very common on the internet, and I see it popped up here again. But,
there is no evidence it happened.


Iasion is quite correct. If it were true, there would have to be some evidence for it. In fact there is not. The idea seems to circulate in modern times because Shirley MacLaine said so in her novel "Out on a limb."

Someone commented about the condemnation of Origen in 553 at the Council of Constantinople at the direction of Justinian, and said that this shows there was strong support for reincarnation.

There is a bit more to this story than meets the eye. Origen died a martyr in the Decian persecution ca. 250. His orthodoxy was only questioned 50 years after his death. The reason was that he was a very voluminous writer, very esteemed in the church, and that since he worked as a philosopher for a living some of his works mentioned philosophical ideas such as reincarnation. No-one questioned that he was evangelising while he was alive.

Around 300 the question was raised, and his orthodoxy vindicated by writers such as Pamphilus and Eusebius, and the matter slept.

But in 400 the issue came up again, and this time was used as a party political slogan. The Eastern Roman Empire was a despotism, in which no political dissent or activity was permitted. But some dissent *was* permitted in religious affairs. Naturally this meant that every political issue clothed itself in religious garb; and it is for this reason that no Eastern council is recognised as ecumenical in the West after Chalcedon (450). What began in 400 is known as the Origenist controversies, and people actually changed sides during them as seemed advantageous. The fight was really for influence by Alexandria in the empire. In the end the anti-Origenists won, and a set of propositions extracted from the works of Origen were formally condemned, and anathema required to Origen and his works. The purpose of this was to humiliate and destroy the Origenist party (much as accusations of Jewish leanings were used by the Nazis, or as 'anti-racism' is used today). This had the awful consequence of the loss of the majority of his works.

The condemnation indicates the strength of a political party and its ability to demonise its enemies, not any tendency to reincarnation in 550 AD. While times change, the character of men does not, it seems.

I hope that is useful!

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 06:32 AM
link   
*crunch crunch* Oops, was my popcorn eating too loud? Sorry. By all means keep going...



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Bump for eyeofhorus

Iasion



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Flyersfan,
I think you are missing the point of reincarnation as others may be. The basis of reincarnation is not just to "come back" to Earth. It's purpose is that inbetween lives here, as a soul you look back on your previous life and see the good and the "bad" that you did. You see how you may have hurt others and also how you may not have progressed in certain areas in a life. As a soul you are leaving this life with what you did, you don't just turn into some "amazing good" soul when you die. So reincarnation is like God's gift for his children to "get it right" It's tiesd in with Karma, in that you come back as many times as you have to or as allowed (not sure on that) until you either get it right or don't. It seems that most people who die and then are brought back to live (near-death expirence) seem to support the concept of reincarnation. I can not say either way if reincarnation is true (i feel it might be and makes sense), but these are people who have actually died and are saying these things...however, who knows how many times we may get to reincarnate and then may not be able to...i don't know if anyone has all the answers on reincarnation. Some people interpret this is what Jesus meant by saying "you must be born again" to see the Kingdom of Heaven...who knows for sure...

[edit on 12-6-2005 by humbled_one]



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Humbled_one made some good points.


No one is forced to come back into physicality. It is always our choice. The period in-between incarnations affords one the opportunity to see oneself clearly, heal, reflect, and pay back those which we have a karmic debt.

My take on the controversy regarding the doctrine of reincarnation in Christianity, which was revised since my earlier post in this thread, can be found at this page:

Reincarnation Was A Strong Belief Among Early Christians




new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join